Re: [RFC] Splitting kernel headers and deprecating __KERNEL__

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> That depends on your definition of 'break'. It should prevent abuse.

Not really. 

It should prevent _future_ abuse.

The notion of "preventing existing xxx" is insane. You can't "prevent" 
something that already happened unless you've come up with some new 
interesting theory of causality.

> To pick a specific example, since you like them: where userland programs
> are including atomic.h, and hence writing programs which don't compile
> on some architectures, and which compile on others but silently give
> non-atomic results, it's perfectly acceptable and indeed advisable to
> prevent compilation across the board.
> 
> Some people might call that breakage; I don't.

I do. The thing is, the people who _notice_ the breakage are often the 
people who don't know what the hell to do about it.

The way to prevent _future_ abuse is by adding something like

	#ifndef __KERNEL__
	#warning "This really doesn't work"
	#endif

which does that, and has the advantage of not breaking anything at all.

In other words: if you want to move things around just to break things, 
THEN THAT IS INCREDIBLY STUPID. We don't do things to screw our users 
over. 

Feel free to send a patch.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/